Raising the Red Flag on Red Flag Laws

***Disclaimer*** I do not in any way want the following to be construed that I believe mentally ill and dangerous people should have unchecked access to firearms. I strongly believe that we as a society should be working on developing more effective courses of action to prevent, intervene and reduce mass-killings, terrorist attacks and suicides. However, those actions must at all times respect due-process rights of all parties involved. Among fellow LEOs and even gunowners, there seems to be a lack of understanding of what these laws entail and how they actually work.

What is a “red flag law?”

“Red Flag” laws gained traction in several states after the school shooting at Stoneman-Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. At the time of this article, several states have passed “red flag” laws including: California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware and Rhode Island.

Understanding the laws vary from state to state, a “red flag law” allows certain individuals, or sometimes law enforcement (the petitioner) to ask a judge to issue an injunction (sometimes called an “extreme risk protection order”) which orders law enforcement to seize firearms possessed by the respondent. The initial hearing that results in the seizure order is ex parte, meaning “one sided” – taking place with only the petitioner and a judge. For all practical purposes, the hearing is conducted in secret – the respondent does not now anything has happened until law enforcement shows up to enforce the order and seize their firearms.

Law enforcement is then tasked with issuing the order and seizing the respondent’s firearms. Within a certain amount of time – usually 2-4 weeks, the individual is granted a hearing with the petitioner and a judge to determine the final outcome. Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the judge then may dismiss the case or order than the respondent’s firearms be seized for a prescribed amount of time, generally, up to a year.

After that time has passed, the case goes before a judge again who decides whether to return the firearms to the respondent or extend the order for another year. There is generally not a sunset clause or limit to how long the order can be extended.

Now very few people would argue that mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or others should possess firearms, and polling data has shown these laws are generally viewed favorably by the public. However, anecdotally in conversations I’ve had with fellow LEOs, family and even gun owners, few seem to understand how these laws actually work beyond that the claim that they “keep mentally ill people from having guns.” It is also worth considering that public opinion does not always mirror the moral high ground – historically many “popular” laws in our nation restricted the rights of certain groups – to vote, ride on buses, use public facilities, go to school or marry.

The “Red Flags”

Suspending Rights Without Due ProcessThe most serious criticism of “red flag” laws is in regards to the “suspension” of an individual’s Constitutional rights without due process. Supporters of these laws will argue the petitioner is guaranteed due process in the form of a later hearing to determine whether or not they can get their guns back. The problem is for those 2-4 weeks until their hearing, the respondent’s individual right to keep and bear arms is denied, because of the ex parte hearing.

Would anyone be alright if their 4th Amendment rights were suspended in this manner? Based not on the fact that you committed a crime – but based on the claim that sometime in the future you may commit a crime?

The simple truth is the amount of time your rights are denied is really not relevant, unless we are determining monetary compensation in a civil rights lawsuit. Cases are dismissed and evidence suppressed when law enforcement officers detain someone without cause for even a few minutes.

When rights are taken away without cause or legal justification, for any amount of time, it is too long. “Suspending” rights is the kind of stuff best left to third-world, bananna-republic dictators.

No Right to Counsel
In many states such as Florida, there is no right to counsel at these hearings, there are no court-appointed attorneys for people who are indigent, and in some states, attorneys are not even permitted at these hearings. Furthermore, since respondents in this case are allegedly mentally ill – what guarantee have we provided that they are capable of effectively representing themselves, or for that matter, able to understand the proceedings against them at all? Is that how the state should be treating vulnerable people with mental illness?

While the language of the 6th Amendment only specifies the right to counsel during criminal proceedings, I cannot think of another time where an individuals rights may be “suspended” in any court proceeding without having the right to counsel. I can’t imagine our forefathers would have envisioned such a situation either. In non-criminal, emergency detention hearings, respondents have right to counsel, as they do during other hearings including probation revocation, driver license hearings and a myriad of other civil review processes. I suspect this area will be a prime target for legal challenges to “red flag” rulings.

Burden of Proof & Presumption of Innocence
In a criminal trial (misdemeanor or felony), the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the suspect is guilty of the alleged crime. However in most restraining order cases, and in Maryland’s ERPO cases, “reasonable cause” aka “probable cause” is the legal threshold that must be me. Legally speaking, this is an extremely low burden of proof, and is the same burden of proof required for a police officer to make an arrest or issue a traffic ticket – not incarcerate, fine or take away someone’s rights.

Many judges choose on their own accord to default to a slightly higher burden of proof in these cases,preponderance of the evidence, which in layman’s terms means “more likely than not” (51% likely). This is the same level of proof that must be met in civil cases (lawsuits), as well as in most minor traffic offenses.
While it is a slightly higher burden of proof than “reasonable cause,” it comes nowhere close to what is required to deprive someone of their rights during a criminal trial.

In criminal cases, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, due to the granting of the ex-parte court order, the respondent is presumed to be mentally unstable and dangerous as they are required to surrender their firearms as they await their final hearing.

So this begs the question – if an individual is so dangerous that we must hold a secret hearing and immediately seize their firearms, should this person be left free and unsupervised in the community?

Other Existing Options
I’ll make it very clear – I don’t believe mentally ill individuals who are a danger to themselves or others should possess firearms, and at many times in my career, even without the help of a red flag law, I have helped take firearms for safekeeping from individuals who were suicidal. However, in all of those cases, firearms were taken with the knowledge and consent of the individual involved, or as evidence in a related criminal offense. Most of the time, family members were able to help facilitate the removal of firearms, taking control of them instead of them ending up in a police property room (where an expensive gun or family heirloom may be subject to damage or corrosion).

We currently have in place a number of “safeties” which prohibit certain people from possessing weapons, including those who are mentally ill:

-Felons may not possess firearms.
-People subject to restraining orders may not generally possess firearms
-People accused of certain crimes may not generally possess firearms as condition of their bail
-People convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence may not possess firearms
-People who are addicted to illegal drugs may not legally possess firearms
-People who have been involuntarily committed for mental health reasons may not possess firearms
-People on probation for certain offenses may be barred from possessing firearms

Restraining Orders
In most states, a judge may issue a temporary restraining / protection order after an ex parte hearing. However, these temporary restraining orders generally do not include a prohibition on the possession of firearms, however when the restraining order is made “permanent” – a judge may issue such a prohibition, and in many cases involving domestic violence, is standard.

Mental Health Commitments
An individual may be taken into protective custodyby law enforcement if they are deemed mentally ill and pose a danger to themselves or others. Usually this starts with a notification to law enforcement by a third party, a law enforcement contact, or at the request of a doctor or mental health professional. The person will be brought to a medical or mental health facility where they will see a mental health professional, and often a medical doctor. Often times the individual can “voluntarily” admit themselves for treatment – which offers them a greater say in their treatment plan and also preserves their future right to possess firearms. As part of their admission to treatment, the individual may be asked to surrender firearms to family or law enforcement.

Many good people – including police officers I have personally known – have gone through periods of time where they have been suicidal and sought out treatment. Suicide claims the lives of far more LEOs every year than line of duty deaths. It is important for people, to whom firearms ownership may be an extremely important part of their personal or professional life, to be allowed to seek help without having to worry about being stripped of their right to possess firearms.

If a person taken into protective custody chooses not to cooperate (or the intervening powers feel a voluntary commitment is not appropriate), then the person may be “involuntarily committed.” In these cases, the individual has a right to a hearing within a certain time period, with representation by council. Like a felony conviction, once involuntarily committed, an individual may not possess firearms for the rest of their life.

While this process is more taxing on law enforcement and mental health resources, it also removes a dangerous person from the community – at least temporarily, and gets them started with treatment. Often times a few days is enough to at least get a person through their momentary crisis, and in more serious cases, people may be hospitalized for weeks or months. Even a short-term commitment provides law enforcement, mental health professionals and family time to create a safety plan and remove weapons from a home – if those stakeholders have the resources and desire to do so.

Enforcement of ERPOs are Dangerous for Law Enforcement and Respondents
There is no doubt that showing up unannounced at a mentally ill person’s home, who is armed, to confiscate their firearms is dangerous – to both law enforcement and potentially the suspect. After only 114 red flag seizures in Maryland, law enforcement encountered an armed and combative man, shooting and killing him during the process.

At a time when law enforcement is being heavily scrutinized for use of force incidents, approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of officer involved shootings are believed to be “suicide by cop,” and de-escalation is being demanded as the expected response to tactical situations with armed suspects – sending armed law enforcement officers to contact a mentally ill subject, in their own home, who is known to have access to firearms, who is believed to be dangerous, to remove their firearms all under threat of force (refusing to obey a court order or obstructing law enforcement is a criminal offense), is a crap shoot every-time you do it. And over what? Because someone MAY be dangerous?

While I understand how some in law enforcement may see this as a “tool” in their toolbox, the reality is law enforcement is already overburdened and under-equipped in dealing with mental health issues, at a time in history when most agencies are suffering from extreme staffing and recruitment shortages. A strong argument can be made that law enforcement should actually be less involved in matters of mental health. Unless the failures of our mental health system are addressed, simply removing firearm access from an individual without the requisite follow-up treatment will not solve any long-term problems.

The Potential for Abuse
The final concern with “red flag” laws is the potential for abuse by people who wish to target or harass gun owners. Think this won’t happen? One of my neighbors was served a temporary harassment restraining order because the neighbor across the street claimed he was shooting on his rural property just to harass her. He was doing nothing illegal, malicious or unsafe – simply living in the country and occasionally shooting on his 40 acre property. Her claim was completely bogus, and she didn’t even show up to the second hearing. The judge threw out the restraining order, but it still cost him time, money and hassle.

In some states, names of concealed carry holders is public information, in fact in New York, a newspaper published an interactive map with names and addresses of gun-permit holders. With this type of specific information available to anti-gun radicals, it would not take much work to convince a judge that you have first-hand information about a person being “dangerous.” And if you think people who file false complaints like that will face criminal repercussions, I can assure you that is a laughable assumption.

Other abuses have occurred in similar situations – such as an Obama-administration rule which categorized people on Social Security who had simply granted financial power of attorney to someone else as “mentally defective” and thus unable to purchase or possess firearms.

If we consider the potential for malicious citizens to issue false allegations against gun-owners, coupled with the potential for “activist” judges to further their own ideology as it applies to the Second Amendment, the potential for law-abiding citizens, citizens with minor mental deficiencies, seniors or others who are not dangerous and who are able to safely own firearms.

Of course it goes without saying that during the time period between an ex-parte order being granted and a final disposition hearing, the respondent is rendered unable to possess a firearm to defend them-self or their family. While it may not seem like such a big deal if they are truly dangerous and mentally ill, in a situation where the respondent is targeted maliciously as my neighbor was, the potential burden on an innocent person’s life could be significant, especially in certain lines of work (shopkeepers, security, police, people who carry large sums of money, or work in dangerous neighborhoods).

I won’t argue against the notion that committing suicide is easier for someone with immediate access to a firearm. I have seen studies that in all honesty, I feel substantiate that claim. However, in both suicides and mass-shooting cases, the perpetrators almost always display warning signs in the weeks and months ahead of an event – which we as individuals, school officials, family members, doctors, and law enforcement – continue to miss. This begs the question, will a law that prescribes a new course of action make any difference if continue failing to act on these warning signs in the first place?

Conclusion

I am not against taking steps to prevent mentally ill and dangerous people from possessing firearms, and I understand firsthand the frustration that law enforcement officers and mental health professionals experience in dealing with potentially dangerous, mentally ill individuals. However, as a public servant I also swore to uphold the Constitution and the principles of due process, equal protection under law, the right to counsel, protection against warrant-less search and seizures and of course the right to keep and bear arms. If those principles are ignored under the color of “public safety,” we are opening the flood gates to the a variety of potential civil rights abuses.

There are serious flaws with the mental health system, serious flaws with the systems in place to report felony convictions and involuntarily commitments to the FBI NCICS and serious flaws in school security procedures in nearly every school in America. These are things that can be fixed through both the legislature and when appropriate, the executive. Red flag laws simply look like a band-aid fix on an arterial bleed.

The skeptic (realist?) in me is suspicious these laws are simply another gun-control mechanism that ultimately exposes every single gun owner to potential firearm confiscation without due process. I also see the success or failure of these laws relying heavily on the benevolence of the government agencies, and individual people involved in these cases not only today – but indefinitely in the future.

Could these laws be written in a way that respects due process, minimizes the risk of harassment aimed at law-abiding gun owners and provides law enforcement a usable tool to reduce suicide and mass-killings? Potentially, but as enacted so far, red-flag laws themselves should be raising red-flags among people who value their civil liberties.